The Calcutta High Court affirms that absent any real prejudice to the accused, defects in framing charges under Sections 302/34/120B IPC, minor inconsistencies in place-of-occurrence evidence, and flexible compliance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act will not invalidate convictions founded on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative ballistic reports. This decision upholds established precedents and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts, while offering persuasive guidance elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/608/2016 of TINKU NASKAR @ POKA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL |
| CNR | WBCHCA0477922016 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2016 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Court | Calcutta High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta |
| Judgment Author | Rajasekhar Mantha, J. (delivered); Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Calcutta High Court and its subordinate courts; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents (William Slaney, Rajesh Yadav) |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – appeals against conviction under IPC and Arms Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that (i) an irregularity in framing charges does not vitiate a trial unless it has prejudiced the accused, who must show actual or likely confusion over the allegations; (ii) minor discrepancies as to the precise venue are immaterial when multiple independent witnesses—both chance and proximate—corroborate the same location; (iii) proposed recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act need not be invalidated for absence of multiple independent attesting witnesses if the investigating officer’s testimony on discovery is credible; and (iv) chance witnesses, properly explained and corroborated, can form the basis for conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ramnath Madhoprasad v. State of M.P. (1953) 1 SCC 178; Willie Slaney v. State of M.P. (1955) 2 SCC 340; Mamfru Chowdhury AIR 1924 Cal 323; Bimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake (2003) 3 SCC 175; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719; Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. (2022) 12 SCC 200; Amit Kumar v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine SC 631; State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil (2001) 1 SCC 652; Perumal Raja v. State 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 |
| Logic / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court applied the “no prejudice” test from Willie Slaney for charge framing; endorsed the Indian approach to chance witnesses from Rajesh Yadav; distinguished Mamfru Chowdhury on venue; and adopted a practical view of Section 27 compliance from State v. Sunil and Perumal Raja. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 16 July 2012, three accused chased and fatally shot a lone motorcyclist with 9 mm pistols in front of a club. Two chance witnesses (an auto‐rickshaw driver and a mason) plus local residents saw the incident, identified the accused in test‐identifications, and corroborated sequence and location. Ballistic tests matched recovered weapons. Trial Court convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and Arms Act; three co‐accused acquitted. |
| Citations | (Judgment itself records no SCC/AIR citation for the present appeal) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts under the Calcutta High Court jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court considering similar challenges to framing of charges, venue inconsistencies, or Section 27 recoveries |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | Mamfru Chowdhury AIR 1924 Cal 323 (venue discrepancy case) |
| Follows | Willie Slaney v. State of M.P.; Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that defects in framing charges under Sections 302, 34, and 120B IPC are cured if the accused, represented by counsel, suffers no real prejudice.
- Reiterates that minor inconsistencies as to the exact spot of occurrence do not undermine convictions when multiple independent witnesses place the incident at substantially the same location.
- Endorses that “chance witnesses”—individuals unexpectedly present—can be fully reliable if their presence and subsequent conduct (e.g., immediate reporting, test‐identification) are satisfactorily explained.
- Clarifies that strict formalities under Section 27 Evidence Act (two independent attesting witnesses) are not mandatory; credible testimony by the investigating officer on discovery may suffice.
- Affirms the continued applicability of the “no‐prejudice” test from Willie Slaney and the commonsense approach to testimony from Rajesh Yadav in Indian criminal trials.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Charge Framing (302/34/120B IPC): Applied Willie Slaney: an irregularity in charges is only fatal if the accused shows actual prejudice or confusion. The appellants raised no trial‐stage objection and failed to demonstrate any prejudice; thus convictions on murder charges were valid.
- Venue Discrepancies: Compared local testimony of PWs 5–9 with chance‐witness accounts (PWs 10, 11). Minor locational mismatches are inconsequential when core facts (in front of the club, on the public road) align and are corroborated by multiple witnesses.
- Chance Witnesses’ Credibility: Embraced the Indian context from Rajesh Yadav: casual presence in public areas for work is common; credibility is assessed on explanation and corroboration, not technical status.
- Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries: Citing State v. Sunil and Perumal Raja, held that contemporaneous recovery notes need not bear signatures of two independent civilian witnesses if the officer’s testimony on discovery is reliable. Three improvised pistols and motorcycles were lawfully admitted.
- Corroboration by Ballistics and Post‐mortem: Ballistic reports matched seized weapons to recovered cartridges. Post‐mortem confirmed homicidal gunshot injuries. These scientific findings bolstered eyewitness evidence to satisfy proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused Counsel):
- Framing charges under Sections 302, 34, and 120B IPC jointly is inconsistent and vitiates trial (relying on Ramnath Madhoprasad).
- Inconsistencies in place‐of‐occurrence evidence render eyewitness testimony unreliable (citing Mamfru Chowdhury).
- PW 11’s police statement timing is unexplained and suspect (citing Bimal Suresh Kamble).
- Presence of chance witnesses requires rigorous explanation (citing Jarnail Singh).
- Discrepancies between inquest and post‐mortem reports on injury count.
- Section 27 recoveries flawed for lack of two independent civilian witnesses (citing Subhramaniam, Pulukuri Kottaya).
Respondent (State):
- No trial‐stage objection to framing of charges; no prejudice shown.
- PWs 10 and 11 provided coherent, corroborated eyewitness accounts.
- Venue evidence from local residents and chance witnesses overlaps.
- Ballistic and post‐mortem reports confirm mode and culpability.
- Investigating officer’s testimony suffices to validate Section 27 recoveries.
Factual Background
On 16 July 2012 at about 6:15 am a lone motorcyclist was chased and shot dead by three assailants carrying 9 mm pistols in front of a local club under Airport PS, Lake Town. Two chance witnesses (an auto‐rickshaw driver and a mason) plus several residents saw the pursuit, firing, and flight of the shooters on another motorcycle. Police conducted an inquest, seized cartridges, weapons, mobile phones, and the victim’s belongings, sent the body for post‐mortem, and arrested the accused in stages. Ballistic and medical reports confirmed homicidal gunshot injuries. A Sessions Court convicted three accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and Arms Act; appeals were dismissed by the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (murder) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) and Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy): held that framing all three charges together is permissible in absence of prejudice (per Willie Slaney).
- Section 27 Evidence Act (discovery statement): compliance is flexible; discovery by the accused leading to articles can be proved by the investigating officer’s testimony without two civilian witnesses (per State v. Sunil).
- Section 174 CrPC (inquest): objective, non‐expert identification of cause and nature of death; minor injury‐count discrepancies vis‐à‐vis post‐mortem are immaterial.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Ajay Kumar Gupta delivered a unanimous judgment with no dissent.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or guidelines; the Court reaffirmed rather than modified existing practice regarding charge framing, witness credibility, and Section 27 recoveries.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing formulations on charge framing (Willie Slaney), chance witnesses (Rajesh Yadav), and Section 27 compliance (State v. Sunil).
Citations
- Ramnath Madhoprasad v. State of M.P., (1953) 1 SCC 178
- Willie Slaney v. State of M.P., (1955) 2 SCC 340
- Mamfru Chowdhury, AIR 1924 Cal 323
- Bimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719
- Rajesh Yadav and Another v. State of U.P., (2022) 12 SCC 200
- Amit Kumar v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 631
- State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil, (2001) 1 SCC 652
- Perumal Raja v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12
- Mustaqeem v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724